Is Summation of Higher Order Partial Derivatives in LaTeX Correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AOA
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Notation
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the notation for higher order partial derivatives in LaTeX, specifically the expression \sum^{n}_{k=1}\frac{\partial^{k}u}{\partial x^{k}}. While some participants acknowledge that writing \frac{\partial^{1}u}{\partial x^{1}} is considered "bad" notation, they agree that using it in a summation context is acceptable. The notation is seen as superfluous when only the first derivative is involved, but it is deemed analogous to other mathematical expressions. Participants also express that alternative notations, such as \sum_{k=0}^n \frac{\partial^k u}{\partial x^k}, are valid with the understanding that \frac{\partial^0 u}{\partial x^0}= u(x). Overall, there is consensus that the notation can be used without significant issues.
AOA
2
0
I know writing \frac{\partial^{1}u}{\partial x^{1}} is "bad" notation, but can I still write the sum:

\sum^{n}_{k=1}\frac{\partial^{k}u}{\partial x^{k}}

??

THANK YOU

PS. Being able to write LaTeX equations is actually awesome.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
When you write it explicitly it looks a bit weird, but I see no objection to using it in such a sum.
 
OK. I just wanted to make sure. Thanks!
 
Can I ask what kind of situation you're getting that sum in?
 
While uncommon, I don't see anything bad about it.

When dealing with just the first derivative of some function, it is superfluous, but completely analogical to the case that x=x^{1}
Neither of these two notations are "bad" in any way.
 
I would even accept
\sum_{k=0}^n \frac{\partial^k u}{\partial x^k}
with the understanding that
\frac{\partial^0 u}{\partial x^0}= u(x)
 
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation has no solutions with positive integers if It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top